No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on Epictetus, Lucian, and the ‘Edict of Ptolemy IV’ (B.G.U. 1211)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
(i) In Epictetus‘ chapter on Providence (1. 16), the eighteenth section contains an evident corruption: ταντα επ’ εκαοτον επνειν εδει και και νον μεγιστον υμνονεπνμνειν…
The duplication of cannot be genuine. It is not an iteration of the kind which heightens the effect of a passage: it just falls flat. Wilamowitz, in his Lesebuch, printed in the first place. This is an improvement, but I doubt whether this conjecture really settles the point. The duplication is stressed, and not eased, by the noun and Epictetus is hardly likely to have followed the verb by the homophonous synonym At one of the two places, then, the scribe missed the original verb by duplicating the other. I believe that consideration of the context can show what the original was and from which place it was ousted.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1950
References
page 69 note 1 I regret that the lack of Schenkl's final edition, as well as of Schweigharuser's, have prevented me from checking the suggestions—if any—of earlier critics, ὺμνειν is attributed to A. Elter in Schenkl, ed. 1894, p. lxxxix.
page 69 note 2 For εὺπημειν connected with a neuter pronoun cf. Xenophon, , Conviv. 4Google Scholar. 49 ενπημ⋯ νοα ἃν δυλογει, also Arist. Eccl. 454 ἒτερ⋯ τε πλερα…ηὐλ⋯γει, cf. Ach. 372 f. The notion of ‘praising’ was kept alive in ενπημιν in the imperial age because it served as the equivalent of the Latin acclamare.
page 70 note 1 The plural τελονμ⋯νας is not excluded, but the corruption is more easily explained on the assumption that Lucian wrote the singular. This reference to the dominating noun τελετην would seem preferable from the point of view of style, for the δᾳδονχιαι and ιεροπαντιαι are presented as elements of the one τελει⋯. Examples of this kind of reference can be found in any grammar.
page 70 note 2 Not ‘in perpetuity’ (while objecting to Mr. Harmon's translation of this passage I would like to stress my appreciation of the thorough and most valuable work which has gone into the preparation of his Loeb edition), ad is often used without that notion of ‘perpetuity’ or ‘eternity’ with which we tend to charge the adverbs ‘always’ and ‘ever’; see, for example, from Attic comedy, Hermippus (Athen. 56 c = i. 249 K.), Aristomenes (Athen. 658 A = i. 691 K.), Alexis (Athen. 650 c = ii. 309 K.).
page 70 note 3 Cf. Dionysius, of Alexandria, apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 40Google Scholar. 2 τενσσαρΩν ημερών ⋯πι της οικιας ἒμενα (cf. ib. 44. 3) and Eusebius himself (on Origen) ib. 3. 12 λ⋯γεται…πλειονγην πεπαγηκεναι αηπαι αηδαμώνοςμαγι. Blass-Debrunner's Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch, 1943, § 186. 2, indicates copious inforstances from the Clementine Homilies.
page 70 note 4 First edited by Schubart, W. in Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Kunstsammlungen, xxxviii, 1916–1917, 189Google Scholar(inaccessible to me); reprinted, e.g., W. Schubart, Griechische Papyri, 1927, 31 (with commentary); David, and Groningen, van, Papyrological Primer, 1946, 130Google Scholar; Manchester Loose Leaf Texts, A5, 1949. Cf. Reitzenstein, R., Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, xix, 1916–1919, 192Google Scholar; Wilcken, U., Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, vi, 1920, 413Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, , Plato, ii, 1920, 85Google Scholar; id. Der Glaube der Hellenen, ii, 1932, 377; Kern, O., Die Religion der Griechen, iii, 1938, 197Google Scholar also in P.-W. xvi. 1302); Moreau, J., Chron. d'Égypte, xxxi, 1942, 119Google Scholar.
page 70 note 5 Cf. Plutarch, , Consol. ad. uxorem 10, 611DGoogle Scholar.
page 71 note 1 Romische Studien, 1922, 21 ff.
page 71 note 2 Loc. laud. 23.
page 71 note 3 See, e.g., Holleaux, M., Rome, la Gréce et les monarchies hellénistiques …, 1921, p. 73, n. 1Google Scholar.
page 71 note 4 Tacitus, , Ann. 2. 67Google Scholar; Justin 30. 3. 4; Valerius Max. 6. 61; and a coin, Babelon i. 128.
page 71 note 5 Cf. Bevan, E., A History of Egypt, 1927, 234Google Scholar.
page 71 note 6 Cf. Walbank, F. W., Philip V, 1940, 310Google Scholar.
page 72 note 1 Cf. ps.-Aristeas 24.
page 72 note 2 Polyb. 15. 32. 7.
page 72 note 3 F. W. Walbank (loc. laud. 313, n. 1) considers this possibility. It had already been advocated by Ferrenbach; see Holleaux (loc. laud.), who himself rejects it.